Personifying Evolution

I thought this would be a good subject since I don't want to derail another thread where it sort of popped up. A couple of decades ago I was hiking through some mountains of Southern California. On the nature trail we came to a sign about Rattlesnakes and an extremely imaginative fable was concocted to explain why these snakes became venomous, because apparently they haven't always been so.

Basically the story went like this. Most snakes kill and eat things that have sharp claws and teeth that could rip a snake apart. The pre-rattlesnake snakes realized this and had to make some evolutionary changes. So IT evolved fangs with deadly poison toxins to paralyze it's potential victims so that they couldn't use those claws and teeth against the snake and damage it. They could then slither up on the fast asleep victim and swallow it whole without fear of it waking up.

Seriously, this was the Fable engraved into this wooden sign by some U.S. Forest Service biologist. It told me that first off the snake had the ability to think and reason intelligently on engineering strategies, perhaps also had the ability for discussion with other like snakes, then it had the power to use Wiccan abilities to morph itself just right. It didn't explain why the other snakes didn't do this. No doubt their intelligence wasn't as advanced as the Rattlesnake. It didn't explain why other snakes not poisinous are so successful at killing and eating the same clawed and buck toothed prey as rattlesnakes. It also didn't help us understand why Kingsnakes (non-poisinous) have the ability to kill and eat rattlesnakes.

I did go back several years later and they had taken that Fairytale down, but the point is that this is so common among those who believe in and promote blind lucky chanced evolution. They are continually hijacking and applying Intelligent design attributes to inanimate evolution when we all know that in the real world, "blind, pointless, pitiless indifference without purpose or intent" DO NOT begat (or give birth to) intelligence.

So why is this ?????? If anyone can explain why we read science journals or Discovery documentaries where nature is given some goddess status by such personification explanations like "Mother Earth" took 50 million years to refine feathers" and so forth and so on, then please explain why such hijacking of intelligence with purpose and intent is necessary to promote blind indifference. How do Giraffes, fish, cells and molecules make conscious descisions to play along or not with Mother Nature's undesigning games ??????? Why the sutle intelligence encryption without explaining what you really mean ???????????

Unfortunately the sign that you read did not represent what the theory of Darwinian evolution preports; that is that the snake had a mutation that enabled it to survive better e.g. the poison/venom to maim/kill it's prey (the theory does not say that thre snake needed to "know" to evolve, or to develop this ability, the snake simply had the mutation that enabled the ability (poison/venom) and because this was a benefit to the snakes survival the gene was passed down to the next generation, and slowly but surely through time and breeding the Rattlesnake as we know it emerged.

The theory does not say that it (evolution) needed to have direction or purpose, it needs to just have the mutation and if it is beneficial to the snakes survival this will be passed on. I think that is why a lot of people are confused on what Darwinian evolution represents/means.

Interesting enough the snake is not affected by it's own venom when it eats its prey with the venom in it, mainly as it is ingested although other animals including humans ingesting venom could possibly be harmed although I am not sure on this.

Basically the story went like this. Most snakes kill and eat things that have sharp claws and teeth that could rip a snake apart. The pre-rattlesnake snakes realized this and had to make some evolutionary changes. So IT evolved fangs with deadly poison toxins to paralyze it's potential victims so that they couldn't use those claws and teeth against the snake and damage it. They could then slither up on the fast asleep victim and swallow it whole without fear of it waking up.

The concept of the sign is right (why evolution favoured snakes using venom) but that is not an accurate representation of evolution. And I don't know of any evolutionists that think of it that way.

Seriously, this was the Fable engraved into this wooden sign by some U.S. Forest Service biologist. It told me that first off the snake had the ability to think and reason intelligently on engineering strategies, perhaps also had the ability for discussion with other like snakes, then it had the power to use Wiccan abilities to morph itself just right. It didn't explain why the other snakes didn't do this. No doubt their intelligence wasn't as advanced as the Rattlesnake. It didn't explain why other snakes not poisinous are so successful at killing and eating the same clawed and buck toothed prey as rattlesnakes. It also didn't help us understand why Kingsnakes (non-poisinous) have the ability to kill and eat rattlesnakes.

That something like that was written on a sign offers no bearing to falsifying evolution. I'm confident that any evolutionist that has any basic understanding of what the theory entails would agree that the sign is a misrepresentation. The snakes obviously did not have the ability to discuss what would make it better or have the ability to morph itself to the desired form. The development of venom was probably a gradual and generational progression that started as simple mutations which allowed the snake to compete more successfully.

And as to why other examples of snakes didn't evolve venom, it is simply because they didn't need to. They acquired different traits via the process outlined above, and they proved to be just as successful as venom. A 'better' trait is not universal - take the rainforests for example, the environment is very similar and yet each organism has a different tactic and has adapted differently.

I did go back several years later and they had taken that Fairytale down, but the point is that this is so common among those who believe in and promote blind lucky chanced evolution. They are continually hijacking and applying Intelligent design attributes to inanimate evolution when we all know that in the real world, "blind, pointless, pitiless indifference without purpose or intent" DO NOT begat (or give birth to) intelligence.

False. Anyone that has even a basic understanding of evolution does not believe that evolution came about in such a way.

So why is this ?????? If anyone can explain why we read science journals or Discovery documentaries where nature is given some goddess status by such personification explanations like "Mother Earth" took 50 million years to refine feathers" and so forth and so on, then please explain why such hijacking of intelligence with purpose and intent is necessary to promote blind indifference. How do Giraffes, fish, cells and molecules make conscious descisions to play along or not with Mother Nature's undesigning games ??????? Why the sutle intelligence encryption without explaining what you really mean ???????????

Once again, there's no 'hijacking of intelligence with purpose' involved by evolutionists. The "Mother Nature" example is simply an analogy to make the concept easier to understand. It is not the real view held by scientists.

Unfortunately the sign that you read did not represent what the theory of Darwinian evolution preports; that is that the snake had a mutation that enabled it to survive better e.g. the poison/venom to maim/kill it's prey (the theory does not say that thre snake needed to "know" to evolve, or to develop this ability, the snake simply had the mutation that enabled the ability (poison/venom) and because this was a benefit to the snakes survival the gene was passed down to the next generation, and slowly but surely through time and breeding the Rattlesnake as we know it emerged.

The theory does not say that it (evolution) needed to have direction or purpose, it needs to just have the mutation and if it is beneficial to the snakes survival this will be passed on. I think that is why a lot of people are confused on what Darwinian evolution represents/means.

But you have to understand that no one has ever provided a viable experiment which proves that random copying errors (a random mutation is just that, a copying error. anything else and it was purposed) provide progressive movement forwrds. This is why I think they use the personification terminologies because it's impossible to prove the mathematical improbabilities of just such luck.

I know what researchers like Richard Lenski are trying to do with their E.coli experiments and discussions of Nylonase examples. But in light of many of the brilliant updates on genetics research of just how DNA really works. It DOES NOT work randomly. It is always goal driven. Lenski assumed he observed a random mutational mistake that turned out to be lucky and just what was needed, but how does he know that ???????? Given the recent unbiased beautifully done scientific research papers these past months on the deeper that ever thought before sophistication of the genetic codes,(BTW, none of these papers give any mention to either evolution or creation, they are in the strictist sense UNBIASED) should not Mr Lenski now rethink his supposition of randomness of mutation ?????? It's sad, but I find it in my own field of Botany and soil microflora in regards to forestry. No one ever thinks to ask common sense questions like, "What's is the original purpose and function of the organism in the first place within it's own natural environmental settings ?????" Well E.coli live and are found in the digestive tracks of most warm blooded animals. They are the food digestors and waste processors of all warm blooded creatures. Eliminate them and everything including us go extinct. So all the various types of E.coli adapt to whatever is necessary to accomplish a goal driven purpose of eliminating waste, converting things to various sugars, etc. Knowing this, it was logically only a matter of time before Lenski's poop replication would engineer itself to consume and deal with citrate. It does anyway in it's natural environment. It also re-engineers itself far faster and at at supercomputer speeds than his experiment allowed for and I understand he had to stop and slow it down dramatically in order to collect and save so-called generations. But nothing naturally evolutionary was obsevered in this human intelligence controlled experiment, at least in the blind no golas evolutionary sense. The Nylonase did exactly the same thing. Given what we now know through recent research and what many of us have always known through real life experience, these bacteria engineered themselves to clean up something new to the environment made of elements already familar to the environment. It is unfortunate that such organisms out in the raw natural world are forced to deal with human stupidity and filth. I fear that things are reaching a point in many areas of no return to order if there is no creator to step in and say, "This is enough".

But to explain these processes in a blind chanced way is admittedly embarassing , hence the need to hijack intelligence terminology and assign it to an evolutionary credit is simply not fair and does not in anyway teach any evolutionary truth if it indeed is.

Interesting enough the snake is not affected by it's own venom when it eats its prey with the venom in it, mainly as it is ingested although other animals including humans ingesting venom could possibly be harmed although I am not sure on this.

Those poisons of course are all proteins anyway. That's why when out in the field I always carry a jar of Adohrs Meat Tenderizer, not that it's a cure, but it's great on bee and wasp stings as it will break down those proteins and lessen the effects of the venom. Careful not to use too much or you'll get a red rash. It tenderizers you too, since you are proteins anyway too.

Unfortunately the sign that you read did not represent what the theory of Darwinian evolution preports; that is that the snake had a mutation that enabled it to survive better e.g. the poison/venom to maim/kill it's prey (the theory does not say that thre snake needed to "know" to evolve, or to develop this ability, the snake simply had the mutation that enabled the ability (poison/venom) and because this was a benefit to the snakes survival the gene was passed down to the next generation, and slowly but surely through time and breeding the Rattlesnake as we know it emerged.

The theory does not say that it (evolution) needed to have direction or purpose, it needs to just have the mutation and if it is beneficial to the snakes survival this will be passed on. I think that is why a lot of people are confused on what Darwinian evolution represents/means.

WOuld you like to take a look at Darwinian evolution? I'm reading the book 'DNA--the Secret of Life,' by James D. Watson, one of the nobel prize scientists who discovered the double helix (Watson and Crick).

According to Watson, Darwin gave us natural selection--the 'driving force' of evolution. But Darwin also believed pangenesis which is LaMarkian. That is acquired traits are passed on. The giraffe ancestor kept eating higher and higher in the trees so it's neck developed and stretched and became a little longer it's lifetime through development. This was passed on and the next generation did the same.

It is understandable then why evolutionary thinking won the day. The acquired trait doctrine is much easier to see--your muscles get bigger when you workout--and you pass this on to your children. But when it was understood that genes are in control--it became 'random mutation.' Then natural selection skimmed off the worse, and kept the better.

Sounds good on paper, but 'random mutation' doctrine ignores HOW basically hypodermic needles were randomly coded for--we're talking about the venom, the glands, the fang muscles, the equally long sharp fangs, the symmetrical placement in the front of the mouth. Each one these phenotypical features (the glands,venom, the fang muscles, and fangs) along with each factor of design (the placement, the length, and the number of fangs, the size of the glands, the chemical makeup of the venom, and don't forget how the . All these things had to be coded for simultaneously so as to make the result a useful machine.

Two factors make it impossible--1)no intelligence, forethought, planning or guidance for the structure of the fang apparatus. 2)Natural selection would delete anything that was not coded for at the same time (e.g. glands without fangs or venom without glands)

The whole thing defies probability and common sense. It is much easier for me to believe that "In the beginning, God created..." than this fable.

I'm confident that any evolutionist that has any basic understanding of what the theory entails would agree that the sign is a misrepresentation. The snakes obviously did not have the ability to discuss what would make it better or have the ability to morph itself to the desired form. The development of venom was probably a gradual and generational progression that started as simple mutations which allowed the snake to compete more successfully.

So prove that this is what happens. Show us how the recent genetic engineering features from the latest research don't employ brilliant code designing mechanisms with a purpose in mind, that ONLY copying error mistakes through time will finally end up with a lucky one eventually after millions of years. And in the mean time how does the snake not go extinct waiting for all of this evolutionary magic (which doesn't really care in the first place) work out for the benefit of the snake ???????????

And as to why other examples of snakes didn't evolve venom, it is simply because they didn't need to. They acquired different traits via the process outlined above, and they proved to be just as successful as venom. A 'better' trait is not universal - take the rainforests for example, the environment is very similar and yet each organism has a different tactic and has adapted differently.

See, even you couldn't help it. You need to show and use terms that prove that chance had no purpose or goal in mind, that it's nothing more than LUCK/CHANCE.

False. Anyone that has even a basic understanding of evolution does not believe that evolution came about in such a way.

Really ?????? Well that's interesting because those are Richard Dawkins very own words and this man has single handedly defined most of the dogmatic terms and expressions used today by evolutionists. The only alternative is intelligent design. Are you saying you believe in some kind of god that invented evolution to accomplish life ????? If so prove it by references.

Once again, there's no 'hijacking of intelligence with purpose' involved by evolutionists. The "Mother Nature" example is simply an analogy to make the concept easier to understand. It is not the real view held by scientists.

An example of this is with once again Richard Dawkins from his book "The Blind Watchmaker" trying to illustrate natural selection achieving highly improbable results with an impertinent computer analogy. You can NOT compare something that is blind and indifferent which natural selection is to something that we all know as having as designer which had computer programs imputted into it with goals and a purpose. Natural Selection is not goal driven, otherwise it's some type of intelligent god. Analogies are useful to illustrate a point or add color to speeches, but should not be used to prove a point.

Can I just say also that one can argue that if the only reason that an organism retains a mutation e.g. passes on an acquired trait/ability is because it benefits its survival then why do male lions have manes, why do humans have eye brows, why do cats purr why is there h*m*s*xuality, finger prints, finger nails, hair on our heads etc. etc. you could come up with a whole list. Obviously you can argue S@xual selection on a couple examples; lions mane etc. and you could also probably argue that the finger nails once served a purpose, e.g. ancestors living in trees and needing claws and what we have today is the remains, but why keep them, what purpose do they serve us today etc.
If there is no purpose to have a characteristic/ability then why have it at all, if the case is that evolution just did not delete it, then shouldn't a lot of organisms have all kinds of wacky things?

Do the chemicals in the snake have intelligence to make poison because the snake is not smart enough? Does it take intelligence to make poison, and if not explain the process of non-intelligence making of poison.

So prove that this is what happens. Show us how the recent genetic engineering features from the latest research don't employ brilliant code designing mechanisms with a purpose in mind, that ONLY copying error mistakes through time will finally end up with a lucky one eventually after millions of years.

First of all, let me clarify what is meant by a mutation. A mutation is simply a change in genetic material. A mutation can occur a number of different ways, for example: a point mutation (one nucleotide being replaced by another). A strand might get swapped end for end. A section may be snipped out. A section might be inserted. Or the entire gene might be duplicated. In the lab, scientists have observed novel genetic material, increased genetic material and increased genetic variety in a population, all as a result from mutations. For references, see my post on page 5 of the topic "Why do evolutionists persist?" Hope that's alright.

And in the mean time how does the snake not go extinct waiting for all of this evolutionary magic (which doesn't really care in the first place) work out for the benefit of the snake ???????????

Once again, this is a lack of understanding of evolution. Each beneficial mutation works out for the better of the snake. It just keeps getting 'better' through a generational progression. See what I said below about how the snake must already be adequately adapted for it to be a snake in that area in the first place (unless there is a radical and abrupt environmental change).

See, even you couldn't help it. You need to show and use terms that prove that chance had no purpose or goal in mind, that it's nothing more than LUCK/CHANCE.

I really don't see how what I said had anything to do with natural selection demonstrating an intent or goal.

Here's what I said: "And as to why other examples of snakes didn't evolve venom, it is simply because they didn't need to. They acquired different traits via the process outlined above, and they proved to be just as successful as venom. A 'better' trait is not universal - take the rainforests for example, the environment is very similar and yet each organism has a different tactic and has adapted differently."

I'll simplify it further:

Firstly, in order for an organism to be a snake in the first place, it must have evolved adaptive traits to be able to fit in with its environment. The original rattlesnake was already (atleast partially, it allowed for continuing successful reproduction) adapted to the environment. However, it may not have been perfect. Whether this was to a changing environment or increased competition and predators, I have no idea. Or, one the original rattlesnake population could have randomly generated a mutation which resulted in an extremely basic form of venom (if you want to know the details, google it. For example, here's one discussing the origins. If you're looking for brevity, they're plenty of those too) which offered that snake a very slight advantage (even if the environment had not changed). This advantage was then passed on to more children, and it would have eventually spread to the rest of the population. This process mutiplied by a hell of a lot of generations and time = snake venom. Seems reasonable.

Now, the other varities of snake might not have needed to develop venom. You emphasised this in my quote for some reason. I thought it was clear, but I'll try refine it for you.

Here's a hypothetical scenario:The other snakes might not have been a part of the rattlesnake population. Therefore, they didn't mate so the genes of the rattlesnakes didn't spread to the other populations (I don't know whether they were seperate species or not). As I said above, they must have already been atleast partially adapted for them to be able to continue to produce offspring in the first place. Hence, the development of venom was not vital for them. Also, there is no goal for evolution, so whatever works is what we see in organisms. Venom is only one possible way to go. And if it's not needed in a certain location due to different predators or prey, then there is no real reason for it to evolve (if the other defensive / offensive mechanisms work just as well as the venom would in that environment).

Next, you emphasized the words "acquired", "tactic" and "adapted". When a species "acquires" a trait, it obviously didn't do so immediately. It either happened as a gradual progression or as a relatively quick spurt (but still as a generational progression). The individual did not acquire venom or legs, for instance (may I also point out that primitive snakes [such as a boa or a python] have vestigial pelvic bones, and even an external & protrusive femur remant.) in a single generation. When I mentioned tactic, I meant the "style" an organism has adopted unintentionally via evolution in order to compete. For example, using venom to kill prey, using extremely agile & fast legs in order to catch a gazelle, using opposable thumbs to grasp objects in order to manipulate the environment or an abstract and intelligent thinking process that allows us to be so so good at adapting our environment to our needs.Now, when I mentioned "adapted", well, I don't know how to simplify that any further without repeating what i've said throughout this post. A leg doesn't develop because the creature decides it needs it to adapt to its environment, and to even suggest that is quite ludicrous and is indiciative of a lack of understanding of the basic principles of evolution.

I freely admit I know very little about snakes. However, I'm just applying what I do know about evolution to the snakes and creating possible scenarios.

I'll accept that definition in relation to what I said, but what you fail to realize is that I agree with you in that respect. The "Mother Nature" moniker is not in anyway related to how evolution actually works. The people reading those science journals are expected to realize that. It's not intended to be misleading, although I admit for somone unfamilar to how evolution works, it may easily mislead them. However, a bit of enquiry or research should point them in the right direction as to what the theory actually is.

An example of this is with once again Richard Dawkins from his book "The Blind Watchmaker" trying to illustrate natural selection achieving highly improbable results with an impertinent computer analogy. You can NOT compare something that is blind and indifferent which natural selection is to something that we all know as having as designer which had computer programs imputted into it with goals and a purpose. Natural Selection is not goal driven, otherwise it's some type of intelligent god. Analogies are useful to illustrate a point or add color to speeches, but should not be used to prove a point.

You seem to believe that evolutionists think natural selection is goal & intent driven. That is a misunderstanding on your part, since that is far from the truth and I have stated why many times here.

WOuld you like to take a look at Darwinian evolution? I'm reading the book 'DNA--the Secret of Life,' by James D. Watson, one of the nobel prize scientists who discovered the double helix (Watson and Crick).

According to Watson, Darwin gave us natural selection--the 'driving force' of evolution. But Darwin also believed pangenesis which is LaMarkian. That is acquired traits are passed on. The giraffe ancestor kept eating higher and higher in the trees so it's neck developed and stretched and became a little longer it's lifetime through development. This was passed on and the next generation did the same.

It is understandable then why evolutionary thinking won the day. The acquired trait doctrine is much easier to see--your muscles get bigger when you workout--and you pass this on to your children. But when it was understood that genes are in control--it became 'random mutation.' Then natural selection skimmed off the worse, and kept the better.

Sounds good on paper, but 'random mutation' doctrine ignores HOW basically hypodermic needles were randomly coded for--we're talking about the venom, the glands, the fang muscles, the equally long sharp fangs, the symmetrical placement in the front of the mouth. Each one these phenotypical features (the glands,venom, the fang muscles, and fangs) along with each factor of design (the placement, the length, and the number of fangs, the size of the glands, the chemical makeup of the venom, and don't forget how the . All these things had to be coded for simultaneously so as to make the result a useful machine.

Two factors make it impossible--1)no intelligence, forethought, planning or guidance for the structure of the fang apparatus. 2)Natural selection would delete anything that was not coded for at the same time (e.g. glands without fangs or venom without glands)

The whole thing defies probability and common sense. It is much easier for me to believe that "In the beginning, God created..." than this fable.

Darwinian evolution theory today occurs with natural selection and random mutations being the driving force, obviously in his day he did not know the complexities of DNA and cells, his thinking in his day was with the available knowledge, with more knowledge coming available the original theory gets corrected/changed.I think this is also why the scientific community this year is changing the main principles and features of evolution, I remember reading that this will be announced some time this year.

Can I just say also that one can argue that if the only reason that an organism retains a mutation e.g. passes on an acquired trait/ability is because it benefits its survival then why do male lions have manes, why do humans have eye brows, why do cats purr why is there h*m*s*xuality, finger prints, finger nails, hair on our heads etc. etc. you could come up with a whole list. Obviously you can argue S@xual selection on a couple examples; lions mane etc. and you could also probably argue that the finger nails once served a purpose, e.g. ancestors living in trees and needing claws and what we have today is the remains, but why keep them, what purpose do they serve us today etc.If there is no purpose to have a characteristic/ability then why have it at all, if the case is that evolution just did not delete it, then shouldn't a lot of organisms have all kinds of wacky things?

Why would evolution need to delete anything? If I had gills still I would not need scuba gear.

Can I just say also that one can argue that if the only reason that an organism retains a mutation e.g. passes on an acquired trait/ability is because it benefits its survival then why do male lions have manes, why do humans have eye brows, why do cats purr why is there h*m*s*xuality, finger prints, finger nails, hair on our heads etc. etc. you could come up with a whole list. Obviously you can argue S@xual selection on a couple examples; lions mane etc. and you could also probably argue that the finger nails once served a purpose, e.g. ancestors living in trees and needing claws and what we have today is the remains, but why keep them, what purpose do they serve us today etc.If there is no purpose to have a characteristic/ability then why have it at all, if the case is that evolution just did not delete it, then shouldn't a lot of organisms have all kinds of wacky things?

First of all, once a trait is imbedded into the genetic code of a population, it can be difficult to remove, simply because there is generally no reason to remove it. Things are only added or removed because of selective pressures. However, it is possible for things to fade out in time, such as the appendix (1 in every 100,000 people are born without one) or the Mexican Tetras eye. In the latter case, the eye is not fully removed, but a thin fleshy layer covers it.

S@xual selection could be a dominant factor in some of the examples. Eye brows in humans could also be argued for S@xual selection, however, they also have a function. They help to present moisture from entering the eye by displacing it to the side of the face. This also applies to debris, and they can even help reduce direct sunlight exposure to the eye. Eyebrows can also help in social situations, such as demonstrating emotion or helping in identification.

The same kind of thing applies to some of the other examples you mentioned. (Also, may I add that the lions mane primary function is intimidation - it makes the lion appear larger. It is also a sign of health (colour & density), which explains why it is also a S@xual selection pressure.)

To your last point, indeed - organisms do have some indeed "wacky" things! For examples, humans are filled with a surprizing amount of useless muscles etc., and even behaviors. Such as the the goosebumps reflex, or a babies reflex to grasp your thumb. If the environment changes, and if the old trait is now deemed detrimental, the trait will get washed out pretty quickly as natural selection once again takes place. Also, take a look at atavisms. They're basically ancestral limbs that later randomly re emerge in an individual. For example, tibias and fibulas in certain whales, humans with tails, chickens with teeth (artificially induced by scientists) etc.

Why would evolution need to delete anything? If I had gills still I would not need scuba gear.

Because gills aren't needed. Not having gills for a land mammal is not detrimental to its survival, so there are no longer any selective pressures that would ensure gills to remain. Body efficiency could be considered an extremely slight pressure, however. (Having gills as unneccessary extras)

Also, keep in mind that an individual that had a beneficial mutation in one regard, might also have had slightly less effective gills (result of another mutation). This could easily result in gills slowly being streamed out of the population.

What I find ironic is that evolutionists use "intelligent" words & phrases, but they call it "random", examples (yes, I'm quote mining - but to the point of the OP, so I hope it's acceptable):enabled if it is beneficialfavoured alloweddidn't need toacquired tactic reason one nucleotide being replaced by anotherget swapped snipped outinsertedduplicatedgetting 'better' imbedded no reason to remove itadded or removed because of selective pressures

If evo's are going to be strict to their belief, also to the point of the OP, they must stop using these sort of terms! The problem is they can't, there is simply no other way to put it - life was purposed, it is obvious!

When evo's do attempt their best at an explanation they use non-definite terms:probablymust have Seems reasonable

This is because there is no evidence that backs up their belief!

***************************************************

may I also point out that primitive snakes [such as a boa or a python] have vestigial pelvic bones, and even an external & protrusive femur remant

Can I just say also that one can argue that if the only reason that an organism retains a mutation e.g. passes on an acquired trait/ability is because it benefits its survival then why do male lions have manes, why do humans have eye brows, why do cats purr why is there h*m*s*xuality, finger prints, finger nails, hair on our heads etc. etc. you could come up with a whole list. Obviously you can argue S@xual selection on a couple examples; lions mane etc. and you could also probably argue that the finger nails once served a purpose, e.g. ancestors living in trees and needing claws and what we have today is the remains, but why keep them, what purpose do they serve us today etc.If there is no purpose to have a characteristic/ability then why have it at all, if the case is that evolution just did not delete it, then shouldn't a lot of organisms have all kinds of wacky things?

Raithie offered a pretty good rebuttal to these, but then says:

To your last point, indeed - organisms do have some indeed "wacky" things! For examples, humans are filled with a surprizing amount of useless muscles etc., and even behaviors. Such as the the goosebumps reflex, or a babies reflex to grasp your thumb. If the environment changes, and if the old trait is now deemed detrimental, the trait will get washed out pretty quickly as natural selection once again takes place. Also, take a look at atavisms. They're basically ancestral limbs that later randomly re emerge in an individual. For example, tibias and fibulas in certain whales, humans with tails, chickens with teeth (artificially induced by scientists) etc.

I say the degenerate state of our world is what causes these abnormalities; the effects of poisons/toxins in our environments. A perfectly acceptable answer (to use evo-speak ).

What I find ironic is that evolutionists use "intelligent" words & phrases, but they call it "random", examples (yes, I'm quote mining - but to the point of the OP, so I hope it's acceptable):enabled if it is beneficialfavoured alloweddidn't need toacquired tactic reason one nucleotide being replaced by anotherget swapped snipped outinsertedduplicatedgetting 'better' imbedded no reason to remove itadded or removed because of selective pressures

If evo's are going to be strict to their belief, also to the point of the OP, they must stop using these sort of terms! The problem is they can't, there is simply no other way to put it - life was purposed, it is obvious!

Hmmm... I fail to see how any of those are "intelligent words & phrases". Especially when so much of them are required to be in context. May I also help with your understanding of evolution, briefly. Mutations are random. If they are beneficial (neither mutations nor natural selection actively determines what is beneficial and what is deleterious - it's simply about what helps the organism to survive and have higher reproductive rates.), this can result in the organism having a larger amount of progeny (because they survive for longer or are better at foraging for food/hunting/escaping predators or are more fertile, etc.), and because of the genetics involved, a chunk of the progeny will also have these traits (more than likely). The same thing applies to the children as the parent 'mutant', and this process is repeated over and over again, until the majority of the population now contain these genes (the others won't be able to compete as well). Gradually, new mutations occur (just like someone born with naturally stronger-than-average muscles) and these are passed down once again, and the process repeats itself generation after generation, slowly progressing to increasing complexity and suitability to their environment.

Also, in particular - how is one nucleotide being replaced by another, or being swapped, snipped, inserted or duplicated any indication of "intelligence"? That's what mutations are, and they have been observed, even to create novel genetic material, increased genetic material and increased genetic variety in populations.

When evo's do attempt their best at an explanation they use non-definite terms:probablymust have Seems reasonable

This is because there is no evidence that backs up their belief!

I was explaining a hypothetical situation, implanting known facts of evolution and natural selection to create one possible scenario, since I know very little about snakes. And when I said "seems reasonable", I was simply trying to explain that even if we didn't have evidence, the occurence of what I described doesn't seem all that irrational. The basic concept of evolution is honestly very simple and quite understandable.

***************************************************

Raithie offered a pretty good rebuttal to these, but then says:

To your last point, indeed - organisms do have some indeed "wacky" things! For examples, humans are filled with a surprizing amount of useless muscles etc., and even behaviors. Such as the the goosebumps reflex, or a babies reflex to grasp your thumb. If the environment changes, and if the old trait is now deemed detrimental, the trait will get washed out pretty quickly as natural selection once again takes place. Also, take a look at atavisms. They're basically ancestral limbs that later randomly re emerge in an individual. For example, tibias and fibulas in certain whales, humans with tails, chickens with teeth (artificially induced by scientists) etc.

I say the degenerate state of our world is what causes these abnormalities; the effects of poisons/toxins in our environments. A perfectly acceptable answer (to use evo-speak ).

First of all, you claim my rebuttal was good, why was it? Did you ignore the first point I made? If not, why was that good, in regards to creationism?Secondly, why was my last point so unnacceptable?

If evo's are going to be strict to their belief, also to the point of the OP, they must stop using these sort of terms! The problem is they can't, there is simply no other way to put it - life was purposed, it is obvious!

When evo's do attempt their best at an explanation they use non-definite terms:probablymust have Seems reasonable

Seriously, that is the whole point of the thread. If they actually stopped hijacking and using words , phrazes and expressions that denote some type of intelligent selective guidance, goals, purpose, etc and used the underlying words, terms, phrazes and expressions presented and insisted upon by their fearless leaders like Richard Dawkins , they would look more the fool than they already do. Can you imagine explaining through their terminology how for no reason or purpose life began through a billion random chances based on some sort of chaos. Then once all the brilliant pieces of genetics were in place (And they insist there is no reason to explain this, it just happened so deal with it), that for no apparent purpose or reason through millions of copying errors/mistakes lucky fractals/patterns just happens to show up and for no rhyme or reason made things in life move forward. The absolute insaneness just goes on and on. Nobody would take them serious if they did actually tell the public the truth in their OWN words of what they actually believe. The only thing that truly evolves is their own explanations of the dogma for which they need to adapt with massive amounts of purpose with intent to fit newer and newer data and research which falsify everything they said before.

I say the degenerate state of our world is what causes these abnormalities; the effects of poisons/toxins in our environments. A perfectly acceptable answer (to use evo-speak ).

Seriously, that is the whole point of the thread. If they actually stopped hijacking and using words , phrazes and expressions that denote some type of intelligent selective guidance, goals, purpose, etc and used the underlying words, terms, phrazes and expressions presented and insisted upon by their fearless leaders like Richard Dawkins , they would look more the fool than they already do. Can you imagine explaining through their terminology how for no reason or purpose life began through a billion random chances based on some sort of chaos. Then once all the brilliant pieces of genetics were in place, that for no apparent purpose or reason through millions of copying errors/mistakes lucky fractals/patterns just happens to show up and for no ryheme or reason made things move forward. The absolute insaneness could go on and on. Nobody would take them serious if they did actually tell the public the truth in their OWN words of what they actually believe.

It's not the evolutionists that hijack those words. It's creationists. The creationists in this thread, for example, describe evolution as either an organism that decides it wants to grow a new leg and then somehow does so or a bunch of random particles intelligently arranging themselves into a being. Wierdly enough, that is not even close to what the theory states. And for the record, evolutionists do explain it scientifically without using any of the words imbued upon it by creationists. You just have to look further than creationist written evolution hatesites or oversimplified explanations by people that either don't understand the basic concepts or are trying to make it very reader friendly. Could you give me some examples of some of the reputable scientists that claim evolution is when organisms govern their existence with specified intent?

The ownly thing that truly evolves is their own explanations of the dogma for which they need to adapt with massive amounts of purpose with intent to fit newer and newer data and research which falsify everything they said before.

How is a theory that adapts to the facts bad? If evidence points to the contrary, the theory is modified, and rightly so. A stagnant, unchanging theory that doesn't conform to new data is worthless.

Random mutations are random and meaningless. There is no hierarchial path that evolution follows; there is no "right" or "wrong" adaption. What works for one organism mightn't work for another due to different bodily structures and environments.Random mutations simply allow for change. The changes that are more effective in one environment and allow for higher reproductive rates stick around, because the genes are passed down. The changes that don't work (or don't work as well) don't get passed down.They replicate by copying themselves and randomly inserting it into the hosts genome. Where's the intelligent purpose? And how do they disprove random mutations?

Show me any experiment where randomness improves anything. Go to the literature and look for PROOF that the mutations that drive evolution are random. If you actually do a thorough research (and I'm not talking about all the popular atheistic pseudo-science forums and sites) of this mission, then you will come up empty-handed. I don't know what old outdated books you are getting this misinformation from, but that is not what most modern science has discovered now.

From the almost 200 years since Charlie Darwin invented this philosophy, this old antiquated assumption of randomness as the driver of evolution is simply not true and never been proven true. It defies and violates all common sense. It's has been substantially disproven by Barbara McClintock and James Shapiro who later took up her work and proved that rather than randomness, DNA internally engineers itself and that the genome devotes massive amounts of resources to actually preventing and correcting random mutations, while at the same time (also discussed in another thread engineers it's own algorithmic codes for when it encounters tough environmental changes. It's also something that the natural world's environment or "Natural Selection", no matter how healthy and robust that environment is, could never compensate for. There would be dramatic failures all over the place millions of years ago and we wouldn't even be here. Massive amounts of birth defects would have doomed life from the very start and that's all that randomness accomplishes, sickness, tumors, cancer, death and extinctions.

As I've stated to others, it is un-scientific and actually ANTI-SCIENCE. And here's why it is anti-science. Randomness presumes underlying disorder, whereas the Scientific Method presumes underlying order. I respect that at least you don't hide the fact that what drives evolution is nothing to do with intelligence, goals or purpose, but my original post was about all the scientific journals, magazines and textbooks along with public speaking promoters that mask this apparent embarassment by using words, terms, phrazes, terminology and expressions that faint intelligent order of directedness. I guess that's why some claim to be a theistic evolutionist.

It has been compared because of its sequential complexity. That doesn't mean it works just like a computer. A computer program was designed with a specific intent of the outcome, and as Dawkins puts it, it's not "specified in hindsight". Computers also don't usually have vestigial programs or pointless duplications or junk codes.

Yes it does function almost exactly like a computer's communications system. I say almost because it's actually more sophisticated than any computer man could invent. It's got the most sophisticated informational compression storage mechanisms known to man. Life also doesn't have vestigial organs or Junk codes. These were invented terms by arrogant genius' who didn't have the testosterone to admit publically they don't actually know something. Like randomness, these old archaic doctrines are out of date and proven to be nothing more than false religious idealogical worldviews.

Geneticist James Shapiro calls it an engineered Operations System and the man is critical of both creationists AND evolutionists. In fact I don't think he can stand hardly either one from what I've read. He's discusted with both positions.

You seem to believe that evolutionists think natural selection is goal & intent driven. That is a misunderstanding on your part, since that is far from the truth and I have stated why many times here.

Now you see, this is where you are not paying attention to my original post. I never said they believe in purpose or intent. They hijack words/terms masking that belief. It's real easy to understand if you dump the hate anything religious dogma and meditate on that important original post.

It's not the evolutionists that hijack those words. It's creationists. The creationists in this thread, for example, describe evolution as either an organism that decides it wants to grow a new leg and then somehow does so or a bunch of random particles intelligently arranging themselves into a being. Wierdly enough, that is not even close to what the theory states. And for the record, evolutionists do explain it scientifically without using any of the words imbued upon it by creationists. You just have to look further than creationist written evolution hatesites or oversimplified explanations by people that either don't understand the basic concepts or are trying to make it very reader friendly. Could you give me some examples of some of the reputable scientists that claim evolution is when organisms govern their existence with specified intent?

Did you actually read the OP ??????? Evolutionists hijack words denoting some sort of blind intelligent guidance all the time. I understand you may not like this exposure, but it's a fact. For them to explain things in their own terms set forth by the Rev Dawkins would actually make them the fool. Actually many scientific researchers have to insert a token E-word even if they don't believe it inside their research papers in order to stay away from the thought police. Fortunately, lately we've been privilaged to see many papers on genomes, DNA, etc that have been published with no mention of either evolution or creation and that's if nothing else actually a VERY healthy thing.

How is a theory that adapts to the facts bad? If evidence points to the contrary, the theory is modified, and rightly so. A stagnant, unchanging theory that doesn't conform to new data is worthless.

It's called just so storytelling to fit data that is showing brilliant design and hijacking it by simply pronouncing "Evolution Did It". It's a sort of reverse of the Creation crowd being accused of not being able to explain something by simply exclaiming "God did It".